You've probably heard about how a ransomware attack crippled a major oil pipeline in the United States earlier this year , causing gas shortages and soaring prices. This is one of the few examples of hackers damaging the real industry, not reputation . Many companies *deliberately do not connect their process control systems to the internet*, so a hacker must first gain physical access to the site before doing any damage. Above all, however, this process control system has a fault-tolerant hardware mechanism, so that a hacker can close the pipeline but not use it. Ultimately, while hackers can harm a business, the physical business always retains control of its physical assets and recovers from an attack.
For YouTube influencers, their YouTube channel is essentially a *business*. If that channel is removed and the YouTube user fails to persuade YouTube to reverse the removal, it will go out of business. I've had a bit of personal contact with business influencers since my blog went viral and after my Warhol-esque 15 minutes of internet fame. A few people suggested at the time that I should stay away from bloggers for one reason or another. And the reality is, you can't: no matter how much client base you have as an influencer, your Google page ranking that leads to search, and any other similar systems that link to any of your external channels, whether it's a blog or YouTube channel. Even if all your content is stored on the same hard drive and you create a new channel with the same name and content, your history is still associated with the original channel and will disappear if you change it. My blog was never a business venture so destroying my blog would only hurt my pride. But nowadays, some YouTubers make big money and hire other people like video editors. Some channels are small businesses dedicated to creating effective content.
The scammer forced YouTube users to delete their channel by impersonating YouTube and threatened to remove their channel if they didn't follow certain account setup steps. That and the fact that these YouTubers managed to reverse the takedown process by interacting with the original YouTube shows that hackers are not the biggest problem: the company that controls the platform. YouTube always removes YouTube channels because the channel owner went against very complicated and incorrect rules and regulations. What makes this scandal believable? But that means YouTube is actually holding these small content companies hostage.
It's really hard to understand how great the platform company's strength is compared to other companies. One is tempted to see them as a kind of Zamindari. And yes, any small business where you rent an office can fire your landlord; The difference is that such a company can probably find another office in a different building to rent to someone else. When you get kicked out by your YouTube "owner", it's almost impossible to find an equivalent alternative to your content; But your "owner" basically controls all your customers and can't move them to new locations.
